The Democrats, we're not wasting your money on GD

What do we think?

Much better than the previous:

These guys covered it pretty well. The good and bad.

I like it, personally. It picks up from the Obama campaign before it, which I considered to be incredibly successful. It’s simple, clean and effective.

It’s okay, I’m not a fan of the D and the circle being the same lineweight, visually they seem to fight for dominance. What exactly does a circle have to do with the Democratic party? If you’re answer is ‘nothing,’ then why is it at least 50% of the logo? I like the selection of typefaces they’ve picked I think that the crisp letters would look good.

I love he step that it makes. Of course the execution could be much better, but that misses the point I think. Much raise to finesse this from a good to great solution than what they had before. Positioning themselves as the future. Overall, thumbs up.

It strongly reminds me of the copyright symbol. I’m half expecting to see a shrunk down version of this at the end of any political statement officially endorsed by the Democratic Party.

Yes, the execution could be better, but the ‘execution’ is all there is. The light blue, when used alongside the royal blue, looks inappropriate. Reminds me of a French train station or something. Should have been red: obvious, I know, but this is America, and if you don’t hammer people over the head again and again about “the rockets red glare” and the “blood spilled on foreign lands fighting for freedom” you’ll lose people. Ditto above comments on lightweight and overall spacing.

The old one was worse though! I’ve never seen a donkey kick like that!

Some context:


Canadian Conservative Party:

Canadian Liberal Party:

New Democratic Party (Social-democrats):

UK Labour Party:

UK Tory:

My personal fav: UK Labour party. It feels welcoming, human, but the typography feels serious and with a mission. Least fav is the UK tory…wtf is that about? Maybe there is some history that would give it context.

On the Big D logo: I want it to be successful, but it falls too short. It looks like some other logo, as has beens stated (Continuum Design? Copyright? I’m sure there is more). It doesn’t say anything. There is no cultural element (like the donkey). They might as well just use a logotype, Democrats in helvetica or something.

I actually think this is a good idea. It’s a fun way to put a stamp on officially marked statements and ads.

I first saw this last week on Real Time with Bill Maher (one of my favorite shows) and he was making fun of it. I think it’s better than it was, at least it updates things a bit from what it was. I would be interested on how much they paid to get to that version.

This would have been a good opportunity to do a nation wide contest voted on by the people online. A) It would get a lot of people involved. B) You would get a lot of options C) If you could keep those pesky Tea Party people from voting you might get a good solid favorite in voting. (Bonus only 2% of Tea Baggers know how to use the internet).

But this could be a good one hour design challenge to bring out our inner graphic designer.

I don’t like it. The light blue looks washed out, wimpy, femimine. The blocky serif type looks too self conscious, and will age quickly. The use of the party name, and tagline in a lockup will also not age well, and as you will see is endlessly ripe for parody. The text, when printed in monochrome at a tiny scale next to candidate names on ballots or cheaply printed flyers may be illegible. However, the old one was beyond terrible. They should have used a dynamic image, with more traditional bold “primary” color palette. With or without a donkey theme or prominent use of the letter D. Most political graphics are fairly hokey, cliche’d and not too fashionable intentionally

The best of the bunch is the current republican one. It is bold, recognizable in any scale, even in monochrome, or reversed, has no type, and a conventionally “patriotic” color scheme placing it in the context of a mainstream political organization. It is a bit dated, but I don’t think that hurts it, especially among republicans, who value tradition.

Nice. Is it because Al Gore invented it, or because its not in the Constitution?

Its interesting that the Republican Elephant symbol has stars that are flipped 180, like a satanic pentagram.

I like it. The colors make it feel somewhat fresh and not stale and dated, which it could easily have been.

However, it does seem too lack that small detail that makes it clever and/or interesting. The detail that makes it stick in the back of the head and make it recognizable.

(I’m a pretty useless GD though)

Looks like a giant rubber stamp which reminds me of bureaucracy. Probably not the image they’re going for.

Also, using a humanist sans-serif font seems to be associated with socialism.

Here’s Gil-Sans as proof:

I was wondering how long it would be before “politics” reared it’s ugly head on this site…

Don’t ask, don’t tell… . IMHO.

LMO: I have views on this election, but I find the GD to be important and interesting. The way Obama was branded in '08 was genius, no matter what you feel about the politics.

Ouch. That’s a good call.

I agree that I cannot think of a more thorough marketing campaign. From top to bottom, the Obama team absolutely owned their brand and they put it to work in a big way. However, that is exactly what creeped me out about it then and what concerns me now. Was the entire campaign nothing more than brilliant marketing? If so, what does that say about us as a society that we can get so easily caught up in clever slogans, pretty posters, and fresh logos?

Having said all of that, let me offer this disclaimer: I am a “middle of the road” voter, though on average the political left tends to irritate me slightly more than the right. But my previously decsribed sense of being “creeped out” by the Obama campaign wasn’t coming from any partisan position. I was just amazed at how so little in substance garnered so much perceived value so quickly and on such a scale. Is marketing and branding really that effective? If so, I stand in awe of it’s power.

Now back to the issue at hand - the new logo is neither here nor there for me. I agree that pretty much anything is better than the previous one and certainly better than the kicking donkey (why on earth someone thought that would make a good mascot I will never understand).

From Wikipedia:

The most common mascot symbol for the party is the donkey. According to the Democratic National Committee, the party itself never officially adopted this symbol but has made use of it.[99] They say that Andrew Jackson’s opponents had labeled him a jackass during the intense mudslinging that occurred during the presidential race of 1828. A political cartoon titled “A Modern Balaam and his Ass” depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by Thomas Nast in an 1870 edition of Harper’s Weekly revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

Only 2% of those who watch Real Time With Bill Maher know how to use their brain. See? Idiocy and prejudice goes both ways.

How about we stop the mudslinging and derogatory name calling and focus on the purpose of this discussion, which is the design merits of the Democrat Party’s new logo.

You’re totally right. I should have left that fact out of the conversation when this is a design discussion, not a political discussion.
Thank you for pointing out that idiocy and prejudice goes both ways. I believe you demonstrated your point quite clearly.